style: the choice and use of wordsinternal organizers: phrases that preview, summarize, and transition between main
points

1. Organizing a
Literature
Review
(introduction,
context of the
problem,
background
definitions of
terms,
relevant theory,
the research
survey,
opportunities
for future research)

exhaustive literature reviews: research
surveys that include all material related to the subjectexemplary literature reviews: surveys of only the most important contributions

2. Selecting a
Summary
Organization

known to unknown: reviewing literature by
considering what (little) is known separately about each variable in the research review
question and then announcing what remains to be learneddeductive: reviewing literature by considering what is known in general categories,
followed by increasingly specific categories that are related to the topicproblem-solution: a problem and its cause are suggested, followed by a research
suggestion that might solve the problemchronological: studies are summarized in their order of publication from the oldest
study through the most recent oneinductive: study findings in a given area are summarized by producing general
propositions (laws or rules) that are demonstrated by each subcollection of them (studies
are grouped largely by their findings, rather than their input variables)topical: studies are summarized by references to content categories into which
studies fallheuristic merit: the ability of research to lead scholars to new inventions, ideas,
and research avenuesexplication: a literature review that makes an issue clear and comprehensive

C. Research
Prospectus
1. Standard
Steps
in the Research
Prospectus

research prospectus: a complete proposal
for a research activity to be completed in the future

2. Common Mistakes

ecological fallacy: using data from groups of people
to draw conclusions about individualsDelphi fallacy: the use of vague predictions as research claimsJeanne Dixon fallacy: making multiple predictions and claiming partial supportpatchwork quilt fallacy: making no predictions but offering explanations after the
fact
ad hoc rescue: claiming support for a theory despite failed predictions

IV. Checking on the Research
Argument
A. Checking on the
Quality of
Research
Evidence

evidence: information that scholars use to support claims

1. Factual Information

a. Reports

factual evidence: descriptions and characterizations of
thingsreports: accounts of what took place whether by participants or by outside
observers

--Types of reports:
primary or
secondary
sources
--questions to
test credibility
of reports:
can the reports
be corroborat-
ed? Are
primary sources
used? Is the
reporter
reliable?

primary sources: information from
individuals who have firsthand experience with the events reportedsecondary sources: information obtained from individuals who do not have firsthand
experience with the events reported

b. Statistical Reports:
--questions to test
credibility of
statistics: are the
statistics recent?
was the sampling
properly
completed? were
the measures
accurate? were
the methods
appropriate?
were the
statistics
misleadingly
presented?

statistical reports: quantitative reports
based on observations in a sampleparameters: numbers that describe the population

2. Opinions
--types of opinion
information: expert
and lay opinion
--questions to test the
credibility of opinions:
is the opinion maker
source competent?
is the opinion maker
biased so much that
the opinion is
unreliable? is the
opinion consistent?
B. Checking on the Adequacy
of Research Reasoning

opinions: interpretations of the meaning of
collections of factsexpert opinion: opinions from people who are experts in the field of inquirylay opinion: opinions from people who are not experts in the field of inquiry

1. Checking Inductive
Research Reasoning

inductive reasoning: the process by which we conclude
what is true of certain individuals is true of a class, what is true of part is true of
the whole class, or what it true at certain times will be true in similar circumstances at
all times

a. argument from
definition
--often found when
articles draw
conclusions that
appear to be about
facts, but really are
applications of
special definitions
--tests of argument
from definition: is
there sound
evidence for the
appropriateness of
word meanings or
usage?" if the
reason for a
conclusion is a
definition, are
conclusions properly
limited to the
meaning of terms in
the research setting?
is the definition truly
equivalent to the
term defined?

argument from definition: reasoning that
submits that things do or do not belong in a certain class of things

b. arguments from
example and
generalization
--most conclusions
drawn in surveys
and carefully
controlled
experiments are
arguments by
example and
generalization.
Studies that
analyze past
speeches also
draw conclusions
by taking specific
examples of
communication
and inferring
generalizations
from them.
--standards for
evaluation: are the
examples typical
and representative?
are enough
examples cited?
are the examples
relevant to the
conclusions
drawn?

argument from example andgeneralization:
taking some particular cases and arguing what is true of the instances is generally true
in the and population of events

c. argument by analogy

--types of analogies:
literal and figurative

argument from analogy: a comparison of two
things known to be alike in one or more features and suggesting that they will be alike in
other features as wellliteral analogy: an analogy that compares something to an event that really exists figurative analogy: an analogy that compares something to a hypothetical situation

--often used in
sections of studies
dedicated to the
rationale and to
the conclusion
--standards for
evaluation: are the
cases similar in
many, rather than
a few, essential
respects? are
there so many
dissimilarities that a
comparison is not
reasonable? since
literal analogies are
preferred as proof,
were literal analogies
relied on instead of
figurative analogies?

d. causal argument
--correctly appears in
long term historical
studies and
experiments
--standards for
evaluation: is there
a direct and potent
relationship between
the cause and
effect? can other
causes actually
explain the effects
instead? can
something else
prevent the effect
from occurring? Is
the cause capable
of producing the
effect all by itself?

causal argument: reasoning that a given
factor is responsible for producing certain other results

2. Checking Deductive
Research Reasoning

deductive reasoning: a form of argument in
which a valid conclusion necessarily follows from premisessyllogism: a set of two premises that result in a conclusion

a. categorical
syllogism
--the chief
reasoning tool
of the literature
review and the
discussion
section
argument in
research
articles
--rules for the
categorical
syllogism: a
middle term
must be
distributed
(used in an
"allness"
statement) at
least once; no
terms may be
distributed in
the conclusion
if not distributed
in a premise; a
negative
conclusion can
occur only when
one of the
premises is
negative; both
premises cannot
be negative; if a
conclusion
describes a
particular, one
premise must be
particular.

categorical syllogism: a syllogism that
starts with a categorical statement (a categorical statement is an "allness"
statement about things). Violations of logical form are called "invalid" because
the conclusion cannot logically follow from the premises

b. disjunctive syllogism
--found in research
arguments in which
scholars try to
compare the
predictions of
conflicting theories
or expectations
--rules: major
premise must
include all
alternatives; major
premise must
deny or affirm a
term in the major
premise;
alternatives must
be mutually
exclusive

c. conditional syllogism
--the basis of the
logic of hypothesis
testing; used in the
hypothesis,
methods, and
discussion of
results section of
research articles
--rules: minor
premise must not
deny the
antecedent nor
affirm the
consequent

conditional syllogism: a form of syllogism
in which the major premise makes an "if-then" statement